Emotional tones in scientific writing: comparison of commercially funded studies and non-commercially funded orthopedic studies
Open Access
- 2 December 2020
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Medical Journals Sweden AB in Acta Orthopaedica
- Vol. 92 (2), 240-243
- https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2020.1853341
Abstract
Background and purpose — There is ongoing debate as to whether commercial funding influences reporting of medical studies. We asked: Is there a difference in reported tones between abstracts, introductions, and discussions of orthopedic journal studies that were commercially funded and those that were not commercially funded? Methods — We conducted a systematic PubMed search to identify commercially funded studies published in 20 orthopedic journals between January 1, 2000 and December 1, 2019. We identified commercial funding of studies by including in our search the names of 10 medical device companies with the largest revenue in 2019. Commercial funding was designated when either the study or 1 or more of the authors received funding from a medical device company directly related to the content of the study. We matched 138 commercially funded articles 1 to 1 with 138 non-commercially funded articles with the same study design, published in the same journal, within a time range of 5 years. The IBM Watson Tone Analyzer was used to determine emotional tones (anger, fear, joy, and sadness) and language style (analytical, confident, and tentative). Results — For abstract and introduction sections, we found no differences in reported tones between commercially funded and non-commercially funded studies. Fear tones (non-commercially funded studies 5.1%, commercially funded studies 0.7%, p = 0.04), and analytical tones (non-commercially funded studies 95%, commercially funded studies 88%, p = 0.03) were more common in discussions of studies that were not commercially funded. Interpretation — Commercially funded studies have comparable tones to non-commercially funded studies in the abstract and introduction. In contrast, the discussion of non-commercially funded studies demonstrated more fear and analytical tones, suggesting them to be more tentative, accepting of uncertainty, and dispassionate. As text analysis tools become more sophisticated and mainstream, it might help to discern commercial bias in scientific reports.Keywords
This publication has 17 references indexed in Scilit:
- Factors Associated with the Quality of Online Information about Scapholunate Interosseous Ligament InsufficiencyJournal of Hand and Microsurgery, 2018
- Factors Associated With Quality of Online Information on Trapeziometacarpal ArthritisThe Journal of Hand Surgery, 2018
- Industry sponsorship and research outcome: systematic review with meta-analysisIntensive Care Medicine, 2018
- Registered Randomized Trials Comparing Generic and Brand-Name Drugs: A SurveyMayo Clinic Proceedings, 2016
- Reporting and Interpretation of Randomized Controlled Trials With Statistically Nonsignificant Results for Primary OutcomesJAMA, 2010
- Discrepancy between Results and Abstract Conclusions in Industry- vs Nonindustry-funded Studies Comparing Topical ProstaglandinsAmerican Journal of Ophthalmology, 2009
- The roles of funding source, clinical trial outcome, and quality of reporting in orthopedic surgery literature.2008
- Association between industry funding and statistically significant pro-industry findings in medical and surgical randomized trials.2004
- Funding source, trial outcome and reporting quality: are they related? Results of a pilot studyBMC Health Services Research, 2002
- Association between competing interests and authors' conclusions: epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJBMJ, 2002